Life and death issue emotional

Sunday

Oct 28, 2012 at 6:00 AMOct 28, 2012 at 6:23 AM

Melissa Kazas always wondered where her dad got all his energy.William Seavey led an active and healthy life well into his 70s — climbing mountains, diving, photographing underwater ocean life, and bungee jumping.

By Bronislaus B. Kush TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

Melissa Kazas always wondered where her dad got all his energy.

William Seavey led an active and healthy life well into his 70s — climbing mountains, diving, photographing underwater ocean life, and bungee jumping.

Mr. Seavey, who retired early from the oil and plumbing business to spend more time “doing things,” also loved to travel to South America or to visit family in Las Vegas.

“He was more active than men much younger than he was,” said Mrs. Kazas, a Douglas resident. “He was always busy with something.”

But in 2000, at the age of 76, Mr. Seavey was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

Despite treatment, the cancer spread to his brain and the disease quickly ate away at his body.

Eventually, he lost his ability to eat, drink or talk.

Refusing hospice care, Mr. Seavey — his discomfort eased a bit by morphine treatments — died just short of his 77th birthday at the Pawtucket, R.I., home of Mrs. Kazas’ sister.

“He didn’t want to go on like that and he wanted us to help end his misery, but we couldn’t,” Mrs. Kazas said. “If we only had a physician-assisted suicide law on the books at the time, he would have been able to die in peace and dignity.”

Next month, Massachusetts voters will decide whether individuals confronting a situation similar to that of Mr. Seavey’s will be allowed to legally obtain a prescription drug to end their lives.

Advocates said that passage of referendum Question 2 on the Nov. 6 ballot will allow individuals with “irreversible” illnesses and with life expectancies of six months or less to end their lives.

Opponents, meanwhile, believe that all life is sacred and that a yes vote will lead to further legislation that will allow individuals crippled by very serious but not immediately life-threatening illnesses, such as Alzheimer’s disease, to legally terminate their lives.

They argue that the “Death With Dignity” question is poorly worded and too vague and that it offers no safeguards, such as a mental health screening of those seeking to end their lives.

“Life is precious. Even people who are bedridden contribute to society,” said Raymond L. Delisle, vice chancellor of operations for the Diocese of Worcester. He is working with the chancery’s Respect Life Office to persuade local Roman Catholics to help defeat the initiative.

Physician-assisted suicide is legal in three states — Oregon, Montana and Washington. It is also permitted in other countries, including the Netherlands and Switzerland.

According to the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance, a total of $1.5 million has been spent by both sides on lobbying efforts.

The law proposed in Massachusetts would allow a licensed doctor to prescribe, at a terminally ill patient’s request, medication that would end that individual’s life.

The patient would have to be an adult resident of the state who had been certified to be mentally capable of making such a decision.

The individual must have also been diagnosed by the patient’s doctor and a consulting physician as having an incurable disease that, with “reasonable medical judgment,” will cause death within six months.

Under the proposal, the patient would ingest the medicine to cause his or her death.

The proposed law would require the patient — either directly, or, if incapacitated to some degree, through a person familiar with the patient’s “manner” of communicating — to twice notify a physician that he or she wants a lethal prescription.

The patient would also have to sign a form in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom is not a relative, a beneficiary of the patient’s estate, or an owner or employee of a health care facility where the individual may be receiving treatment.

Allegra Harris, a spokeswoman for Dignity 2012, the main advocacy group, said passage of the question would relieve many people, some on life-supporting machinery, who have been suffering with no chance of relief or recovery.

“This is an intensely, personal issue,” Ms. Harris said.

Proponents said the matter is fundamentally an individual choice and that people have the right to make life and death decisions without government interference.

They said the measure would ease the worry of those who feel that they are an emotional drain and a financial burden on relatives.

Meanwhile, Andrew Hoglund, a spokesman for the Committee Against Physician Assisted Suicide, said the question was poorly drawn up and does not require an individual to see a psychiatrist, psychologist, or counselor before obtaining a lethal drug.

He argued that many who seek to end their lives are in need of treatment for depression.

Opponents added that the quality of palliative care and of pain reducing drugs has increased substantially over the years and that they provide more compassionate means of treatment.

Debates about physician-assisted suicide date back to early civilizations.

In modern times, the issue garnered headlines in the 1990s with the highly-charged prosecution in Michigan of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a pathologist who helped at least 130 people end their lives.

Dr. Kevorkian, who died in 2011, was found guilty of second-degree murder in one of the cases and served eight years of a 10- to 25-year prison sentence.

Much of the discussion about physician assisted suicide revolves around moral, religious, ethical and legal questions.

Individuals on both sides of the question acknowledge the Massachusetts vote is an important one, given that approval of the measure may spawn more aggressive efforts elsewhere.

Interestingly, the Bay State’s religious community is divided on the issue.

For example, the Catholic Church, which is the most powerful and the most influential religious organization in Massachusetts, has been working hard to defeat the measure.

However, other groups, such as the Massachusetts Council of Churches, a partnership of about 17 Orthodox and Protestant denominations, is not taking a position on the referendum because there is no clear consensus of its membership.

Spokesmen for some of the religious organizations privately note that life should be cherished but that it is difficult to outright dismiss the arguments made by the terminally ill and their families.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.